A new courthouse in Olympia? Here’s what Thurston County is considering. Again.

Thurston County may ask voters to fund a new courthouse in the near future, potentially stopping or limiting in-progress renovations at its aging campus.

The Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1 on June 17 to pause its remodel project at its Lakeridge Drive courthouse campus for 30 days while three commissioners meet weekly to consider potential options for a long-term solution.

The move may revive a previously abandoned proposal to build a new courthouse in Olympia. If the board moves forward with such a proposal soon it would mark a departure from its ongoing plans to meet its urgent space needs — plans that it already decided to finance with a $50 million bond.

Any new courthouse would require voters to approve a property tax increase. The county planned to ask voters to do that in 2020 to pay for a new $250 million courthouse, but the commission at the time retracted those plans due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the ensuing years, the county decided to instead turn its Lakeridge Drive campus into a renovated law and justice center and move its administrative offices to the Atrium, a 90,000 square foot, leased office building at 3000 Pacific Ave. SE in Olympia.

The county completed its move to the Atrium in December 2022 after signing an extendable seven-year lease in mid-2021.

Why pause now?

Commissioner Carolina Mejia said she requested the board consider its long-term plans for a new courthouse campus before starting construction on its renovation project.

“I want to have this conversation now before we actually move into the construction phase of these buildings,” Mejia said. “Because how are we going to go out to the voters and say we expended $50 million and now we’re asking you for more money for new buildings? It just, for me, seemed dead in the water on arrival.”

As it stands, Mejia said the county would be investing the $50 million into meeting its space needs at the current courthouse campus without fully addressing all the necessary infrastructure improvements.

“How much longer are we going to be staying in those buildings?” Mejia said. “Because we don’t have the space now and those buildings are already falling on top of us.”

Mejia along with Commissioners Emily Clouse and Wayne Fournier volunteered to form a subcommittee that would meet with stakeholders to discuss potential options.

“I’m all for pausing,” Fournier said. “I’ve been vocal about my concerns about spending $50 million on something that’s only going to last us 10 years. I don’t see it getting us where we need to be because we need to think bigger and make real plans that are going to last us for 40, 50 years, not five to 10 years.”

Commissioner Gary Edwards voted against forming the subcommittee after his motion to live-stream the subcommittee meetings failed.

“I guess if we’re going to develop public trust, I think we have to be open to the public,” Edwards said.

Commissioner Tye Menser said a live-stream may cause the subcommittee and participating stakeholders to be measured in a way that may not be best for brainstorming ideas.

Mejia agreed with Menser and said the subcommittee needs to discuss solutions rather than share “campaign speeches.”

“The whole point of this is to strategize, to bring something, a proposal to the board that’s going to actually have legs,” Mejia said. “With it being live streamed, it’s going to be a little bit more measured, especially with different stakeholders.”

Absent a live-stream, Edwards requested the subcommittee record their meetings for the record, so they may be referred to later if need be.

The board also left open the possibility that the subcommittee may decide to live-stream their meetings on their own.

Given that three commissioners would constitute a quorum, they would still have to notice the meetings and open them to the public.

Why is a new courthouse needed?

Rick Thomas, capital projects planning manager for Thurston County, briefed the board on the current state of the courthouse campus and previous proposals for a new courthouse on June 17.

He said the current campus was built in the late 1970s and was only meant to last about 30 years at most. Over four decades later, the buildings are showing their age both in their design and upkeep.

Thomas said the buildings have narrow corridors that are hard to navigate and the county needs more space to serve a growing population. Additionally, he said the buildings are difficult to access with limited parking and poor wheelchair accessibility.

Crucially, the buildings need better security, particularly for the courts, as well as infrastructure upgrades. He said the heating and cooling systems are costly and inefficient and the campus has experienced power outages and significant water leaks in the past.

“Roofs need to be replaced,” Thomas said. “The buildings don’t meet current earthquake safety codes and again, when these buildings were built, there weren’t computers actually sitting on people’s desks.”

County Manager Leonard Hernandez said some judges walked into a water leak recently and ceiling tiles had fallen on the floor. He added the buildings are “way out of date from a technology standpoint.”

“I had the privilege of having a tour with a few folks last week.” Hernandez said. “There’s a ton of wire management issues because the building wasn’t situated for cameras and computers and scanners and everything else that comes with operating in a modern age.”

Thomas said the current renovation plans may only extend the buildings’ lifespan by about 10 years, so the $50 million is not even enough for a complete restoration.

How may a pivot affect the county?

A pivot towards building a new courthouse may mean the county’s law and justice offices would have to contend with limited to no renovations of their current facilities for several more years.

Brett Buckley, presiding judge of Thurston County District Court, told the board that District Court is willing to forgo the renovations if the board commits to pursuing a new courthouse.

“I’m just telling you on behalf of people who are going to work in the courthouse, who are going to come to the courthouse for its services, we need a new facility and renovating it isn’t going to get us where we need to be.”

John Skinder, presiding judge of Thurston County Superior Court, said he’s open to a pivot if the board makes a new courthouse a priority. If that’s not the priority, he said the court will still need help with space and infrastructure needs.

“I think that’s the difficult position that the board’s in, is that there’s the short-term fix that doesn’t get us everywhere we need to get,” Skinder said. “We need a long-term fix.”

Even if the county decides to pivot, Prosecuting Attorney Jon Tunheim said his office still needs to see some improvements as a new proposal gets sorted out.

“I don’t know what the plan could look like, but what I would support is something that gives us at least some sense of relief… to get 10 years out of that and then we go into a new courthouse conversation like we’ve never done before, not just us, but with the community,” Tunheim said.

Patrick O’Connor, the county’s public defense director, and Carrie Hennen, director of pretrial services, agreed with Tunheim about at least completing some improvements in the near term.

“I think my biggest fear is no renovation and no ballot measure passed,” O’Connor said. “Nobody wants that, but is that a possibility? Of course.”

If the current project continued through August, Thomas Strempke, capital projects manager for Thurston County, said the county will have spent about $7 million of the $50 million bond.

In the event voters reject a ballot increase this November, Thomas said the county would face a 4–5-month delay in its current construction schedule and a $300,000 to $500,000 construction escalation cost.

In that scenario, Thomas said the county would have to cut up to $500,000 from the construction contract and spend around $300,000 to redesign the project with a reduced scope.

What would a new courthouse look like?

The county previously drafted plans for a potential new courthouse to support its retracted 2020 ballot initiative.

Thomas said the county proposed a 330,000 square foot, multistory building at the intersection of Plum Street and 8th Avenue that would house a new courthouse and administrative offices.

He said the plan was for the building to replace Olympia’s Lee Creighton Justice Center and for the county to share some courtrooms and other facilities with the city.

In 2019, the county estimated the project could cost about $250 million. Nowadays, Thomas said a similar project may cost upwards of 30% more due to inflation over the past several years.

Given that so much time has passed since the last proposal was abandoned, it’s unclear if it could be brought back as it was. Thomas presented a map with six potential 5–10-acre properties in Olympia for a new courthouse and the Plum Street site was not among them.